1. Mutual feedback in e-portfolio
assessment: an approach to
the netfolio system
The atrikel is writhen by Elena Barbera. She is is a
professor currently (2009) involved with the
Department of Psychology and Education Studies at
the Open University of Catalonia as a teacher
coordinator of the Educational Psychology area
This summary is written by Magnus
Nohr April 2013 as a student work in
the program e-assesment @ HiOA

2. The Netfolio system
This paper presents an alternative application of e-portfolio in a
university student assessment context. A concept based on student
collaboration (called netfolio) is developed, that differs from the
classical e-portfolio concept. The use of a netfolio, a network of
student e-portfolios, in a virtual classroom is explained through an
exploratory study. A netfolio is more than a group of e-portfolios
because it offers students a better understanding of learning
objectives and promotes self-revision through participation in
assessment of other students' learning, as indicated through their
portfolios. Class student e-portfolios are interconnected in a unique
netfolio such that each student assesses their peers' work and at the
same time is being assessed. This process creates a chain of co-
evaluators, facilitating a mutual and progressive improvement process.
Results about teachers' and students' mutual feedback are presented
and the benefits of the process in terms of academic achievements are
analysed.

5. This study does not consider the results of these
co-evaluation processes involving both teacher
and student in a summative evaluation, as is
often the case (Hall, 1995). Instead, they are
understood as scaffolding methods at the heart
of a formative evaluation directed at improving
teaching and learning.

6. Avantages with The netfolio concept
• the students learn to discuss decisions and
relate contents
• the continuous improvement that it can offer
a student. A student does not see the work as
definitive but can steadily improve it over the
learning period.

7. Derrick and Davis (2006)
• …have argued that sometimes the feedback
process in online education needs to be more
explicit than in face-to-face education to have
similar educational effects. The netfolio seems
to be a useful tool in achieving this aim
because of the inclusion of peer and co-
assessment processes and their consequences

8. Shortcomings of regular e-portfolios
• Their format is most frequently based on the
individual creation of work.
• The collective value that other students may
bring to the work is not taken into account.
• It is not a complete work because it is not
submitted as a single large text but as pieces
of work that are very interesting but
unconnected to each other.

9. netfolio
• In short, the netfolio overcomes the limitation of working alone and
the restricted range of learning experiences that characterise
‘classic’ e-portfolios.
• For its part, a netfolio is basically a large mesh of different learning
outcomes driven by two assumptions:
• (1) It offers different interpretations of each piece of students’work
corresponding to a learning objective or a specific competence in
terms of professional skills put forward by diverse students.
• (2) it understands each student’s portfolio as a multi-text that
interweaves the different demonstrations of learning outcomes into
a larger text with a global and interrelated meaning. Thefirst
assumption refers to the communication between students that
validates or clarifies the demonstration of an agreed core of
competence.

10. technolegy
• Perspectives are shared by students through
specific forums. The first is located in a forum site
in each competence section, to which all students
have access; the other emerges in the student’s
personal forum, which can be accessed by the
other students.
• The final result of the contributions to the latter
forum is what should be reflected in the
introductory page (presentation section) of the
netfolio as cognitive changes induced by equals.

11. complete rubric of the course is
displayed in which three
types of qualitative assessments
appear in an automatic box:.
(1) Self-assessments of the
students themselves;
(2) assessments of other students in the e-
portfolio (mutual assessments);
(3) the teacher’s assessments

12. The students in the test were divided into two groups:
Group A “classical e-portfolio»
Group B “the netfolio system»
(1) questionnaires (2) analysis
of documentation and interactions posted on
The results obtained initially confirmthat the different portfolios—these include
both e-portfolio and netfolio are valid student dialogues and feedback from the
tools for learning assessment of university teacher and classmates.
students.

13. Findings
• Group B graded higher than Group A
• Greater number of revisions Group A reaches
an average of 0.6%, while Group B reaches
1.9%. Using the netfolio leads to more
revisions both by the students, of their own
work, and amongst students, and this in turn
leads to better final results.
• The greatest differences between the groups
can be detected in this section of interaction.

14. Conclusions
• feedback between peers should not be an accidental
practise, but an essential, integrated component of the
evaluation system
• The teacher does not provide more feedback in the
development of the netfolio than in the classical e-portfolio
but must bring together a more complex network of
interactions between the students and intervene when
necessary.
• “We expected greater satisfaction amongst the students
who used the netfolio in comparison with the oneswho
used the more traditional e-portfolio. This greater
satisfaction was expected as a result of the cohesion and
internal relations within the group itself; however, the
greater attention and load of electronic interactions is
evidence that it did not occur as expected”

15. MOOC
massive open online course
• Self-assessments
• Peer assessment
• Rubrics are often used in conjunction with
Self- and Peer-Assessment

17. Daphne Koller
Co founder Coursera We ended up using is peer grading. It turns out
that previous studies show, like this one by
Saddler and Good, that peer grading is a
surprisingly effective strategy for providing
reproducible grades. It was tried only in small
classes, but there it showed, for example, that
these student-assigned grades on the y-axis are
actually very well correlated with the teacher-
assigned grade on the x-axis. What's even more
surprising is that self-grades, where the students
grade their own work critically -- so long as you
incentivize them properly so they can't give
themselves a perfect score -- are actually even
better correlated with the teacher grades.

18. http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_
we_re_learning_from_online_education.html